Santoro 1 Emily Santoro History 2090 Professor Norton 6 December 2010
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Santoro 1 Emily Santoro History 2090 Professor Norton 6 December 2010 Samuel Parris as a Recorder The Salem witchcraft crisis of 1692 developed from a fairly common circumstance into a unique and complicated event. Fortunately court records, town records, and letters from the time period survived to assist contemporary scholars to understand and explain its occurrence. Recently, handwriting analysis on these documents identified some recorders and enabled a closer analysis of these papers. This knowledge can answer the questions of why a recorder wrote specific documents and what his judicial role was on a certain day. The Salem Village minister, Samuel Parris, actively participated in the Salem witch trials. His daughter, Elizabeth Parris, and his niece Abigail Williams, were two of the first afflicted girls and accusers during the crisis. Further, Parris recorded several judicial documents in 1692 and an obvious pattern emerged. Samuel Parris’s role as a recorder in the Salem witchcraft trials depended on the involvement of his niece, Abigail Williams, and his church members. In addition, the accused mentioned in the documents written by Parris and their families tended not to sign the petition supporting him in 1695 which suggests continued animosity. Out of the 980 documents concerning the Salem witch trials, Samuel Parris’s handwriting has been identified on 48.1 Why had Parris written these particular documents? Since he did not record a majority of them, he did not have an official role recording all of the trials and associated papers. On the other hand, the figure indicates his recording was not done on rare occasions. Scribing 48 out of the 980 documents shows that Parris must have had specific reasons for writing them. 1 Research on Recorder Identification done by Margo Burns, Peter Grund, and Matti Peikola Santoro 2 Parris’s first written paper was a warrant for Sarah Good on February 29, 1692. However, his hand appears only as a secondary contribution since Parris only wrote the date 1.March.1691/2, which was probably when Sarah Good was apprehended. The warrant was issued on behalf of Elizabeth Parris, Abigail Williams, Anna Putnam, and Elizabeth Hubbard. It is not surprising that the first document involving Parris, even though minimally, was associated directly with his niece and daughter.2 The second warrant that Parris contributed to was issued on May 8, 1692 for Ann Sears, Bethiah Carter Jr., and Bethiah Carter Sr. Parris recorded that he apprehended Ann Sears and Bethiah Carter Sr. on May 9. However, he signed under “Ephraim Black, Constable of Woburn.”3 This suggests that Parris transcribed for Ephraim Black, who apprehended the accused and brought them to jail. Despite these warrants, most of Parris’s recording roles involved him composing the majority of the document. Unsurprisingly, Parris took an active role in Abigail Williams’s participation in the judicial proceedings. In May of 1692, Abigail provided the court records with nine testimonies of her afflictions and afflicters. Parris recorded all of these testimonies, beginning on May 2 and ending on May 31.4 In fact, these were the only exclusive testimonies that Parris wrote. In one instance Parris recorded a testimony of Ann Putnam Jr. but it was part of Ann Putnam Sr.’s deposition.5 No one else wrote any of Abigail Williams’s testimonies and so it appears that Parris reserved this right for himself. The timeline of the documents written by Parris reveals more about his role as a recorder during the trials. In March 1691/2, Parris recorded three depositions and two examinations. In 2 Bernard Rosenthal, Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 125. 3 Ibid., 239. 4 Ibid., 235, 254, 256, 296, 314, 338, 342, 343. 5 Ibid., 160. Santoro 3 April 1692, these numbers increased slightly to total two depositions, seven examinations, and one statement. May 1692 had Parris most intensely involved with eleven examinations, three depositions, Abigail Williams’s nine testimonies, and one warrant. After that, his involvement phased out at a sudden rate. Up until the end of May, Parris recorded examinations on 9 out of the total 16 days they were held in the meeting place.6 The gradual increase of his involvement coordinated with the gradual increase in the witch trial cases, until the establishment of the Court of Oyer and Terminer on May 27. Following the Court’s founding, Parris only wrote six depositions in June 1692, followed by a month long absence of him recording anything in July. In August 1692, Parris inscribed his final judicial documents about the witchcraft trials, which consisted of one deposition on the fourth and one statement on the fifth.7 It can therefore be concluded that Parris’s role as a recorder of examinations increased as the examinations burgeoned, and then diminished directly in association with the Court’s formation. The depositions are an important factor to look at when attempting to understand Parris’s role as a recorder. They differed from most of the court records because the people approached Parris to write these depositions. Out of the total fifteen depositions, nine involved Parris himself. In eight of these nine, Parris joined Nathaniel Ingersoll and Thomas Putnam to report afflictions that occurred during certain examinations.8 The other one of Parris’s depositions was with John Putnam Sr. about Putnam’s illness. Parris was with John Putnam Sr. when they called in Mercy Lewis to see if she saw the specter of a witch that might have caused his suffering. The deposition stated that Mercy Lewis saw Rebecca Nurse and Martha Carrier as the sources of 6 Three additional days of examinations occurred during this time period but took place in the jail and all were either recorded by John Hathorne and Jonathan Corwin. (Ibid., 198-200, 220, 237.) 7 Ibid., 125-538. For a clear timeline of Parris’s documents, see the attached Appendix. 8 Ibid., 137, 152, 176, 179, 233, 292, 429, Santoro 4 John Putnam Sr.’s discomfort.9 That was the only instance of Parris directly accusing someone and where he was not reporting an incident that happened to his niece and her cohorts. Besides these depositions that personally involved Parris, he recorded for six others. On May 20, 1692, Parris wrote a deposition for Jonathan Putnam, James Darling, Benjamin Hutchinson, and Samuel Braybrook against Mary Easty.10 James Darling was also Mercy Lewsis’s uncle-in-law, and it was her afflictions that the deposition primarily concerns.11 Why did these four men come to Parris to have him record his deposition? One factor might be that they all hailed from Salem Village and so he was a community leader. Additionally, Jonathan Putnam was a member of Parris’s church, as was Benjamin Hutchinson’s wife, Lydia.12 Three of the four men apparently supported Parris and respected him. Jonathan Putnam, Benjamin Hutchinson, and James Darling either signed the Pro-Parris petition of 1695 themselves or had relatives that did so.13 Samuel Braybrook actually signed the Anti-Parris petition, as did his wife Mary.14 Since this showed that Braybrook clearly did not have favorable views of Parris in 1695, it leads one to wonder why he chose Parris as the recorder of his deposition against Mary Easty. It may be because the other three men outweighed his opinion of Parris or perhaps Braybrook had a partial disposition towards Parris at the time, since the examinations were three years before the petition was signed. An unusual deposition that Parris recorded concerns Thomas Putnam and Edward Putnam against Rebecca Nurse. The two men said that they witnessed Rebecca Nurse afflicting 9 Ibid., 429. 10 Ibid., 302. 11 Mary Beth Norton, In the Devil’s Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692, (New York: Vintage Books, 2003), 70. 12 Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Village Witchcraft: A Documentary Record of Local Conflict in Colonial New England, (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1972), 269, 272, 407-409. 13 Ibid., 262-263. 14 Ibid., 261-262. Santoro 5 Ann Putnam Jr.15 However, the odd component about this deposition was that Thomas Putnam himself avidly recorded for the witch trials. He normally wrote Ann Putnam Jr.’s depositions since she was his daughter.16 Likewise, Edward Putnam wrote his own depositions previously.17 Why did Thomas and Edward Putnam have Parris record their evidence when both of them were capable? Perhaps Parris wrote this document since the evidence involved Rebecca Nurse, with whom his niece had previously had many spectral encounters with and whom Parris had written many documents about already. Another Salem Villager who approached Parris to record his deposition was Bray Wilkins. He filed his deposition against John Willard on August 4 and it was the final deposition by Parris. Bray Wilkins belonged to Parris’s church, which may again explain why Parris recorded Wilkins’ evidence. Also, Bray Wilkins apparently adamantly supported Parris over the years because he also signed the Pro-Parris petition in 1695, as did about nine of his relatives.18 Additionally, John Willard was the grandson-in-law of Bray Wilkins, which showed familial tension between the two men.19 Samuel Parris authored other depositions but was not the main scribe of them. An example of this was Ann Putnam Sr.’s deposition against Martha Carrier and Rebecca Nurse. Thomas Putnam originally wrote it on March 24, and then Samuel Parris’s role in the document began on May 31 when Ann Putnam Sr.’s evidence was read in court. He added onto the document, saying that Rebecca Nurse afflicted her again during the trial.20 This was logical since Parris recorded Rebecca Nurse’s examination and therefore witnessed Ann Putnam Sr.’s 15 Rosenthal, RSWH, 430.